View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Linking Creativity Anxiety to Two Creative Cognitive Styles through Creative Self-Efficacy and Novelty Seeking

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Linking Creativity Anxiety to Two Creative Cognitive Styles through Creative Self-Efficacy and Novelty Seeking
Language: English
Authors: Shuoqi Xiang, Yadan Li, Richard J. Daker, Yangping Li, Xipei Guo, Weina Lei, Wenbo Deng, Weiping Hu
Source: Creativity Research Journal. 2025 37(1):56-70.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Creativity, Anxiety, Self Efficacy, Cognitive Style, Novelty (Stimulus Dimension), Creative Thinking, High School Graduates, Children, Foreign Countries, Innovation, Longitudinal Studies
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2275981
ISSN: 1040-0419
1532-6934
Abstract: While creativity anxiety has been found to have negative relationships with various creative outcomes, whether creativity anxiety would also negatively influence creative cognitive styles (i.e. idea generation; idea selection) and the mechanisms underlying these impacts are still unknown. Based on the Self-Efficacy Theory (SET) and the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model (DPCM), we designed cross-sectional and cross-lagged models to examine the potential chain mediating effects of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking in the influence of creative anxiety on creative cognitive styles. Five hundred and ninety-one participants were recruited to complete self-report measures of creativity anxiety, creative self-efficacy, novelty seeking, and creative cognitive styles at Time1, with 301 participants conducting a second wave of surveys within a year interval (Time 2). Results in both models showed that creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea generation and selection. More importantly, both mediation analyses showed that creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea generation indirectly through creative self-efficacy and then novelty seeking. However, creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea selection only through creative self-efficacy. This study provides empirical evidence for the negative effect of creativity anxiety on creative cognitive styles and illustrates that creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking could explain these impacts in different mediating patterns.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1458416
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEKq8fQdGYzbmlY__9DFjUjAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIcZOPfeiK0ut5htqAIBEICBmzcs3SxVb8cAUHdv_Sekk92V13Cbz7QI6YkZ6oSEZd4ssLMUagLUJk9g-IK-5XU5CFUVIlHqUyBd5ZPoHUYKXPwDg2sKmN0nw3cj2q1Jayvl1BEadLyI9WHOxqcvpK0SI9DUrT9sWNQKCAU_jiM_wTUUq10VBCLdHHIlez3WYabMVYnQDRYB6PGaA5BqEhdHR0Xz_vRJrLDQ-Zya
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182340429;7lo01jan.25;2025Jan23.01:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182340429-1">Linking Creativity Anxiety to Two Creative Cognitive Styles Through Creative Self-Efficacy and Novelty Seeking </title> <sbt id="AN0182340429-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>While creativity anxiety has been found to have negative relationships with various creative outcomes, whether creativity anxiety would also negatively influence creative cognitive styles (i.e. idea generation; idea selection) and the mechanisms underlying these impacts are still unknown. Based on the Self-Efficacy Theory (SET) and the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model (DPCM), we designed cross-sectional and cross-lagged models to examine the potential chain mediating effects of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking in the influence of creative anxiety on creative cognitive styles. Five hundred and ninety-one participants were recruited to complete self-report measures of creativity anxiety, creative self-efficacy, novelty seeking, and creative cognitive styles at Time1, with 301 participants conducting a second wave of surveys within a year interval (Time 2). Results in both models showed that creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea generation and selection. More importantly, both mediation analyses showed that creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea generation indirectly through creative self-efficacy and then novelty seeking. However, creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea selection only through creative self-efficacy. This study provides empirical evidence for the negative effect of creativity anxiety on creative cognitive styles and illustrates that creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking could explain these impacts in different mediating patterns.</p> <p>Creativity is consistently regarded as the ability to produce original and appropriate ideas (Runco & Jaeger, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref1">55</reflink>]). Twofold models of creativity (e.g., blind variation and selective retention, BVSR) consistently assume that idea generation and selection are two necessary cognitive processing while completing creative tasks (Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]; Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref3">43</reflink>]; Weinberger, Green, & Chrysikou, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref4">65</reflink>]). Tasks depending primarily on idea generation involve combining remote associations and producing novel and various ideas (Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref5">43</reflink>]). In contrast, tasks depending primarily on idea selection implicate executive control and integrative processing for a remote association to discover or identify something original (Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref6">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to examining idea generation and selection as they occur during creative cognition or tasks, some researchers have begun to be interested in individual differences in the propensity to engage in these types of cognition in day-to-day life. Fürst ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]) proposed that idea generation and selection could be considered two individual tendencies of creative cognitive/thinking styles during daily cognitive activities, contributing to real-life creativity. Specifically, idea generative tendency involves retrieving a memory, combining remote associations, or producing novel and various ideas, such as figuring out various ideas easily (Fürst, Ghisletta, & Lubart, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]; Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref9">43</reflink>]). In contrast, idea selective tendency implicates executive control, integrative or profound processing, such as crafting and elaborating ideas carefully (Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref10">43</reflink>]). Two kinds of creative cognitive styles are beneficial for real-life creativity. Specifically, generative thinking is in charge of the quantity and originality of ideas, while selective thinking is essential for the quality of ideas (Fürst, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>]; Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref12">43</reflink>]). If individuals tend to use both cognitive styles in their daily lives, it is bound to be conducive to the production of everyday creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-3">Relationships between creativity anxiety and creativity</hd> <p>Creativity anxiety, measured by the newly developed Creativity Anxiety Scale (CAS), means that an individual is specifically anxious about thinking creatively (Daker, Cortes, Lyons, & Green, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref13">18</reflink>]). Although growing studies have examined the relationship between anxiety and creativity, consistent conclusions are still not reached (Byron & Khazanchi, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref14">11</reflink>]; Paek, Abdulla, & Cramond, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref15">49</reflink>]). For this inconsistency, the crucial reason might be the lack of distinguishing creativity-specific anxiety from general anxiety (Paek, Abdulla, & Cramond, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref16">49</reflink>]). Creativity anxiety has recently been clarified as a potential barrier to creative achievements (Daker, Cortes, Lyons, & Green, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]; Ren et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref18">53</reflink>]). A recent Daker, Cortes, Lyons, and Green ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]) study illustrated that creativity anxiety pervaded across diverse domains ranging from conventional creative areas, such as art and music, to STEM domains, such as math and science. Furthermore, the study showed that despite excluding the effect of general trait anxiety, creativity anxiety was still negatively linked with real-life creative accomplishment (Daker, Cortes, Lyons, & Green, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref20">18</reflink>]). Another study by Ren et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref21">53</reflink>]) also indicated that creativity anxiety was negatively linked with logarithmic values of the creative achievement scores (CAQ_log). Therefore, we hypothesized that creativity anxiety would negatively influence creative cognitive styles, including idea generation and selection.</p> <p>Besides, empirical studies support that those who suffer from high levels of creativity anxiety might be inclined to escape specific creative cognition (i.e., idea generation and selection). Research in other cognitive domains, like math, has consistently found that anxiety (i.e., math anxiety) is linked with poor achievement (Dowker, Sarkar, & Looi, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]; Hembree, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref23">34</reflink>]). Beyond implications for in-the-moment performance, evidence from math anxiety suggests that when people are anxious about specific types of thinking, they tend to avert situations that will ask them to engage in. Research in math anxiety literature has shown that highly math-anxious individuals are significantly less inclined to pursue elective math courses (LeFevre, Kulak, & Heymans, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref24">46</reflink>]) or careers involving math (Hart & Ganley, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]). Importantly, this avoidance of math is also thought to extend to day-to-day activities: recent work has shown that math-anxious students pay less attention to math class, for instance (Geary, Hoard, Nugent, & Scofield, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref26">25</reflink>]), and researchers have hypothesized that they would also be likely to study less for math classes and generally avoid doing math whenever possible (Ashcraft, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]). This day-to-day avoidance of math is thought to lead highly math-anxious individuals to establish math ability less over time. Therefore, if creativity anxiety functions similarly, it would suggest that highly creativity-anxious individuals may tend to avoid engaging in creative cognition whenever possible. This avoidance tendency may have downstream consequences for improving creative abilities if this were the case. We predicted that creativity anxiety would negatively affect individuals' tendencies to engage in idea generation and idea selection.</p> <p>More importantly, although some studies have proved that creativity anxiety is negatively correlated with creative achievement (Daker, Cortes, Lyons, & Green, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref28">18</reflink>]; Ren et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref29">53</reflink>]), no longitudinal evidence proves the sequential relationship between anxiety in creative domains and creative performance. In other words, existing studies do not know whether an increase in creativity anxiety leads to a decrease in creativity or whether a decrease in creative performance leads to an increase in creativity anxiety. Previous research shed light on a potentially sequential relationship, as even when individuals do not participate in creative activities, they would worry about openness, ambiguity, and uncertainty, and the anxiety of the increased risk of failure may hinder creative thinking (Amabile & Khaire, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]; Henderson, Pine, & Fox, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref31">35</reflink>]; Kirschner, Hilbert, Hoyer, Lueken, & Beesdo-Baum, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref32">41</reflink>]). Therefore, creativity anxiety might be the antecedent variable that undermines creative performance.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-4">Associations between creative self-efficacy, creativity anxiety, and creativity</hd> <p>Except for testing whether creativity anxiety causes avoiding engagement in the creative cognitive styles of idea generation and idea selection, this study also sought to understand why such an impact might be present by collecting measures of potential explanatory variables. Creative self-efficacy (CSE), a specific expression of self-efficacy in creative fields, is a self-assessment of whether he/she can produce creative or original results (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]; Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska, & Gralewski, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]). Typically, the CSE is considered a necessary intrinsic motivation component that affects individual creative performance and novelty tendency (Karwowski, Gralewski, & Szumski, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref35">38</reflink>]; Tierney & Farmer, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref36">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous observations among self-efficacy, other types of anxiety, and creativity suggested that creativity anxiety might influence creative cognitive styles through the negative mediating effect of the CSE. Regarding the relationship between other types of anxiety and self-efficacy, numerous studies have indicated that anxiety, such as writing anxiety, mathematics anxiety, and social anxiety, are negatively related to self-efficacy (Cooper & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]; Mills, Pajares, & Herron, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref38">48</reflink>]; Saadé & Kira, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref39">56</reflink>]). Besides, one self-efficacy-based intervention study has also shown that enhancing self-efficacy effectively reduces anxiety (Wong, Chan, & Chair, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref40">66</reflink>]). In addition, the Self-Efficacy Theory (SET) emphasizes that individuals primarily rely on non-cognitive factors, such as emotion, to evaluate self-efficacy (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]). Negative emotion generally represents a dangerous or threatening situation, likely narrowing the attention span and consuming cognitive resources (Byron & Khazanchi, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref42">11</reflink>]; Davis, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref43">19</reflink>]; Schwarz, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref44">58</reflink>]). These factors led Daker, Cortes, Lyons, and Green ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref45">18</reflink>]) to assume that creativity anxiety would be negatively related to the CSE, and their results showed that this prediction was supported, even when controlling for general trait anxiety.</p> <p>For the association between creative self-efficacy (CSE) and creativity, numerous studies have shown that CSE positively predicts creativity (Beghetto, Kaufman, & Baxter, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>]; Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska, & Gralewski, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref47">40</reflink>]; Tierney & Farmer, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref48">62</reflink>]). Some studies even indicated that intervening in the CSE is more effective in improving creativity than directly cultivating creative performance (Byrge & Tang, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref49">10</reflink>]; Mathisen & Bronnick, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref50">47</reflink>]). Furthermore, the CSE has also been found to mediate between other personality factors (e.g., critical thinking disposition, trait curiosity, creative mind-sets) and creativity (Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref51">37</reflink>]; Qiang, Han, Guo, Bai, & Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref52">52</reflink>]). These findings demonstrate that the CSE might be a necessary motivational factor for different aspects of creativity, including creative cognitive styles and real-life creativity. Similarly, the SET also holds that self-efficacy directly influences an individual's motivation and cognitive function to complete a certain behavior (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]). Therefore, we posited that creative self-efficacy would negatively mediate the effect of creativity anxiety on two creative cognitive styles (i.e., idea generation; idea selection).</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-5">Associations between novelty seeking, creativity anxiety, and creativity</hd> <p>Novelty seeking (NS) might be another potential explanatory variable to explain the impact of creativity anxiety on creative cognitive styles. Novelty seeking is characterized by the internal behavioral tendency to seek original and novel stimuli (Costa, Tran, Turchi, & Averbeck, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref54">17</reflink>]). Growing studies have shown that NS is positively related to various forms of creativity, such as divergent thinking (Chavez-Eakle, Lara, & Cruz-Fuentes, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref55">14</reflink>]). Furthermore, NS is also linked with higher creative personalities (e.g., openness and extraversion) and further predicts superior creativity (Gocłowska, Ritter, Elliot, & Baas, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref56">26</reflink>]; Gordon & Luo, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]). Theoretically, novelty seeking is a positive predictor of creativity in the Novelty Generation Model (NGM) proposed by Schweizer ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref58">59</reflink>]). Besides, some indirect evidence about neuromodulators also has illustrated the potentially positive association between novelty seeking and creativity. Specifically, many studies have confirmed that a change in neuromodulators (e.g., Dopamine, DA) is either positively linked with novelty seeking (Kluger, Siegfried, & Ebstein, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref59">45</reflink>]; Suhara et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref60">60</reflink>]) or creativity (Chermahini & Hommel, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]; Takeuchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref62">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>While past work has shown that novelty seeking is positively linked with creative performance, past studies provide reasons to assume that creativity anxiety might hinder novelty seeking. It has been extensively revealed that anxiety is characterized by impaired cognitive functions, such as shortening attention span or occupying working memory resources (Byron & Khazanchi, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref63">11</reflink>]; Paek, Abdulla, & Cramond, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref64">49</reflink>]). Accordingly, individuals might largely depend on attentional control and engagement with conventional cognitive activities that are not coherent with novelty seeking. Besides, the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model (DPCM) also points out that negative emotion might be associated with cognitive inflexibility and prompt individuals to adopt conventional routines to complete tasks (Baas, Roskes, Sligte, Nijstad, & De Dreu, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>]; De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref66">20</reflink>]). Therefore, we assumed that novelty seeking would negatively mediate the effect of creativity anxiety on creative cognitive styles.</p> <p>Nonetheless, when considering the differences between idea generation and idea selection, we believe it is more likely that novelty seeking would be a mediator between creativity anxiety and idea generation, but not between creativity anxiety and idea selection. Novelty seeking is more likely associated with reduced cognitive control (Schweizer, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref67">59</reflink>]). By comparison, idea selection depends on executive functions and attentional control (Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref68">43</reflink>]; Runco & Jaeger, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref69">55</reflink>]), while idea generation emphasizes producing various and original ideas (Fürst, Ghisletta, & Lubart, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref70">23</reflink>]). Therefore, as idea generation might depend more on novelty seeking behavior than idea selection, we predicted that novelty seeking would not mediate the creativity anxiety affecting idea selection.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-6">Potential chain mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking</hd> <p>As hypothesized above, the CSE or the NS might be single mediators in the impact of creativity anxiety on two creative cognitive styles (i.e., idea generation; idea selection). However, what is the association between the two constructs when the CSE and the NS are both mediating variables? For idea generation, we hypothesized that creativity anxiety might predict idea generation first through creative self-efficacy and then via novelty seeking. According to the SET, creativity anxiety, as a negative emotion, might be an adverse factor for creative self-efficacy and might compel individuals to act cautiously (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>]; De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref72">20</reflink>]). Then, less creative self-efficacy might be less motivated to seek novelty. Specifically, sufficient creative self-efficacy might be conducive to exploring unknown and original environments. In contrast, dysfunctional creative self-efficacy might cause worry about the unknown and failure, which may reduce novelty seeking. Similarly, the DPCM potentially implicates the multiple indirect roles of the CSE and the NS (Baas, Roskes, Sligte, Nijstad, & De Dreu, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>]; De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref74">20</reflink>]). Specifically, suppose individuals are anxious about creative thinking. In that case, this might undermine creative self-efficacy and further promote individuals to engage with deeper cognitive processing in fewer cognitive categories and rely more on executive control functions rather than novelty seeking. Given the significance of novelty seeking for idea-generative processes (Gocłowska, Ritter, Elliot, & Baas, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref75">26</reflink>]; Gvirts et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref76">29</reflink>]), we assumed that creativity anxiety would negatively affect idea generation by the serial mediating role of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking.</p> <p>For idea selection, we hypothesized that the potential serial mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking would not occur. Idea generation requires the remote associations and production of original or various ideas, while idea selection emphasizes executive control processing, such as judgment, evaluation, formalization, and elaboration (Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref77">43</reflink>]; Weinberger, Green, & Chrysikou, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref78">65</reflink>]). Idea selection might have a low demand for novelty seeking. Furthermore, creativity anxiety might influence idea selection independent of novelty seeking. Therefore, we did not expect to observe multiple mediating effects on the link between creativity anxiety and idea selection.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-7">The present study</hd> <p>Cross-sectional and cross-lagged models (see Figures 1 and 2, respectively) were conducted to assess whether creativity anxiety would reduce the tendency to engage in two forms of creative cognition (i.e., idea generation and idea selection) in day-to-day life. Furthermore, based on the SET and the DPCM, it sought to explain what would account for these putative reductions by examining the mediating effect of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking. We hypothesized that: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>) creativity anxiety would undermine idea generation and selection through the indirect effect of creative self-efficacy; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref80">2</reflink>) novelty seeking would mediate the effect of creativity anxiety on idea generation but not idea selection; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>) creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking would multiply mediate the impact of creativity anxiety on idea generation but not idea selection.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Hypothesized cross-sectional model for relationships among creativity anxiety, creative self-efficacy, novelty seeking, and two creative cognitive styles (idea generation, IG; and idea selection, IS) at Time1.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Hypothesized cross-lagged model for a semi-longitudinal design for relationships among creativity anxiety, creative self-efficacy, novelty seeking, and two creative cognitive styles (idea generation, IG; and idea selection, IS) at Time1 and Time2.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. The multiple cross-sectional mediating effects of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking on the relation between creativity anxiety and idea generation (A) as well as on the relation between creativity anxiety and idea selection (B).</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-8">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182340429-9">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 591 participants (470 females) were recruited (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 19.303, <emph>SD</emph><subs>age</subs> = 0.680, ranging from 18 to 22). In addition, 34.856% (<emph>n</emph> = 206) of the sample were only children. Among them, 301 participants (251 females; 99 only-child) completed the second wave of surveys within a year interval. Furthermore, all participants gained high-school diplomas. None of the participants had psychiatric disorders, and all had a normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Additionally, after receiving informed consent, all participants filled out the questionnaires.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-10">Measures</hd> <p>For construct validity of the scales employed by this study, please refer to the results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in supplementary materials, Section 2. For internal consistency reliability and discriminative validity, please see Table 1 (591 participants at Time1) and Table 4 (301 participants matching at Time1 and Time2) for Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> coefficient and the square root of average variance extracted (AVE), respectively (Ab Hamid, Sami, & Sidek, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>]; Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref83">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive statistics at Time1 (<emph>n</emph> = 591).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>CA_T1</td><td>CSE_T1</td><td>NS_T1</td><td>IG_T1</td><td>IS_T1</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>α</td><td>CR</td><td>AVE</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CA_T1</td><td><bold>0.704</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>24.421</td><td>5.789</td><td>0.896</td><td>0.885</td><td>0.496</td></tr><tr><td>CSE_T1</td><td>−0.300**</td><td><bold>0.732</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td>18.332</td><td>3.680</td><td>0.854</td><td>0.901</td><td>0.536</td></tr><tr><td>NS_T1</td><td>−0.232**</td><td>0.458**</td><td><bold>0.705</bold></td><td /><td /><td>40.888</td><td>6.268</td><td>0.830</td><td>0.855</td><td>0.498</td></tr><tr><td>IG_T1</td><td>−0.183**</td><td>0.551**</td><td>0.493**</td><td><bold>0.722</bold></td><td /><td>10.435</td><td>2.161</td><td>0.745</td><td>0.763</td><td>0.521</td></tr><tr><td>IS_T1</td><td>−0.155**</td><td>0.297**</td><td>0.199**</td><td>0.356**</td><td><bold>0.762</bold></td><td>6.843</td><td>1.553</td><td>0.726</td><td>0.733</td><td>0.581</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Notes</emph>. *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01.T1 = Time 1. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted. CA = Creativity Anxiety; NAC = Non-creativity Anxiety Control; CSE = Creative Self-Efficacy; NS = Novelty Seeking; IG = Idea Generation; IS = Idea Selection. The following tables are similar.</p> <p>Table 2. Multiple linear regression results for investigating the mediating effects after controlling for the covariate variables at Time1 (<emph>n</emph> = 591).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td>Outcome variable</td><td>R</td><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>β</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td>Boot</td><td>Boot</td><td>Outcome variable</td><td>R</td><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>β</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td>Boot</td><td>Boot</td></tr><tr><td>LLCI</td><td>ULCI</td><td>LLCI</td><td>ULCI</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>E1</td><td>CA_T1</td><td><bold>IG_T1</bold></td><td>0.232</td><td>0.054</td><td>11.097</td><td>−0.178</td><td><bold>−4.419***</bold></td><td>−0.257</td><td>−0.099</td><td><bold>IS_T1</bold></td><td>0.195</td><td>0.038</td><td>7.720</td><td>−0.152</td><td><bold>−3.744***</bold></td><td>−0.058</td><td>0.341</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.193</td><td>−1.933</td><td>−0.389</td><td>0.003</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.026</td><td>0.255</td><td>−0.231</td><td>−0.072</td></tr><tr><td>Only-child</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.233</td><td>−2.750**</td><td>−0.399</td><td>−0.067</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.248</td><td>−2.911**</td><td>−0.172</td><td>0.224</td></tr><tr><td>E2</td><td>CA_T1</td><td><bold>CSE_T1</bold></td><td>0.380</td><td>0.144</td><td>32.980</td><td>−0.292</td><td><bold>−7.639***</bold></td><td>−0.376</td><td>−0.202</td><td><bold>CE_T1</bold></td><td>0.380</td><td>0.144</td><td>32.980</td><td>−0.292</td><td><bold>−7.639***</bold></td><td>−0.416</td><td>−0.081</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.546</td><td>−5.750***</td><td>−0.739</td><td>−0.359</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.546</td><td>−5.750***</td><td>−0.740</td><td>−0.354</td></tr><tr><td>Only-child</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.116</td><td>−1.442</td><td>−0.268</td><td>0.037</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.116</td><td>−1.442</td><td>−0.269</td><td>0.040</td></tr><tr><td>E3</td><td>CA_T1</td><td><bold>NS_T1</bold></td><td>0.471</td><td>0.222</td><td>41.851</td><td>−0.105</td><td><bold>−2.746**</bold></td><td>−0.188</td><td>−0.020</td><td><bold>NS_T1</bold></td><td>0.471</td><td>0.222</td><td>41.851</td><td>−0.105</td><td><bold>−2.746**</bold></td><td>−0.191</td><td>−0.018</td></tr><tr><td>CSE_T1</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.417</td><td><bold>10.586***</bold></td><td>0.338</td><td>0.498</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.417</td><td><bold>10.586***</bold></td><td>0.336</td><td>0.499</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.066</td><td>−0.709</td><td>−0.230</td><td>0.100</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.066</td><td>−0.709</td><td>−0.235</td><td>0.107</td></tr><tr><td>Only-child</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.084</td><td>−1.092</td><td>−0.226</td><td>0.061</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.084</td><td>−1.092</td><td>−0.226</td><td>0.059</td></tr><tr><td>E4</td><td>CA_T1</td><td><bold>IG_T1</bold></td><td>0.619</td><td>0.383</td><td>72.674</td><td>0.015</td><td>0.423</td><td>−0.058</td><td>0.084</td><td><bold>CS_T1</bold></td><td>0.333</td><td>0.111</td><td>14.612</td><td>−0.061</td><td>−1.49</td><td>−0.152</td><td>0.026</td></tr><tr><td>CSE_T1</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.422</td><td><bold>11.015***</bold></td><td>0.341</td><td>0.503</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.256</td><td><bold>5.564***</bold></td><td>0.148</td><td>0.361</td></tr><tr><td>NS_T1</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.304</td><td><bold>8.254***</bold></td><td>0.224</td><td>0.381</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.069</td><td>1.562</td><td>−0.030</td><td>0.167</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.127</td><td>1.525</td><td>−0.046</td><td>0.308</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.186</td><td>1.863</td><td>−0.007</td><td>0.384</td></tr><tr><td>Only-child</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.143</td><td>−2.091*</td><td>−0.277</td><td>−0.009</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.210</td><td>−2.543*</td><td>−0.368</td><td>−0.047</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph><bold>Notes.</bold></emph> *<emph>p</emph> <.05; **<emph>p</emph> <.01; ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.Gender and only child status were dummy variables, male = 0, female = 1; only-child = 0, not only-child = 1. E1, 2,3, and 4 represent Equation 1, 2,3, and 4 respectively. All the variables were standardized.</p> <p>Table 3. Indirect effects after controlling for the covariate variables at Time1 (<emph>n</emph> = 591).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td>Effect</td><td>Boot SE</td><td>Boot LLCI</td><td>Boot ULCI</td><td>Ratio of indirect to total effect</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Idea generation</td><td>Total effect</td><td>−0.178</td><td>0.040</td><td>−0.257</td><td>−0.099</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Direct effect</td><td>0.015</td><td>0.034</td><td>−0.053</td><td>0.082</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Total indirect effect</td><td><bold>−0.192</bold></td><td><bold>0.031</bold></td><td><bold>−0.254</bold></td><td><bold>−0.131</bold></td><td><bold>108.164%</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect: CSE_T1</td><td><bold>−0.123</bold></td><td><bold>0.022</bold></td><td><bold>−0.169</bold></td><td><bold>−0.081</bold></td><td><bold>69.369%</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect: NS_T1</td><td><bold>−0.032</bold></td><td><bold>0.014</bold></td><td><bold>−0.060</bold></td><td><bold>−0.006</bold></td><td><bold>17.962%</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect: CSE_T1 &NS_T1</td><td><bold>−0.037</bold></td><td><bold>0.009</bold></td><td><bold>−0.056</bold></td><td><bold>−0.022</bold></td><td><bold>20.833%</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Idea selection</td><td>Total effect</td><td>−0.152</td><td>0.041</td><td>−0.231</td><td>−0.072</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Direct effect</td><td>−0.061</td><td>0.041</td><td>−0.142</td><td>0.020</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Total indirect effect</td><td><bold>−0.090</bold></td><td><bold>0.022</bold></td><td><bold>−0.135</bold></td><td><bold>−0.052</bold></td><td><bold>59.591%</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect: CSE_T1</td><td><bold>−0.075</bold></td><td><bold>0.021</bold></td><td><bold>−0.118</bold></td><td><bold>−0.037</bold></td><td><bold>49.242%</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect: NS_T1</td><td>−0.007</td><td>0.007</td><td>−0.023</td><td>0.003</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect: CSE_T1 &NS_T1</td><td>−0.008</td><td>0.006</td><td>−0.022</td><td>0.003</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4. Descriptive statistics at Time1 and Time2 (<emph>n</emph> = 301).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>CA_T1</td><td>CSE_T1</td><td>NS_T1</td><td>IG_T1</td><td>IS_T1</td><td>CA_T2</td><td>CSE_T2</td><td>NS_T2</td><td>IG_T2</td><td>IS_T2</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>α</italic></td><td>CR</td><td>AVE</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CA_T1</td><td><bold>0.699</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>24.724</td><td>5.824</td><td>0.901</td><td>0.881</td><td>0.488</td></tr><tr><td>CSE_T1</td><td>−0.289**</td><td><bold>0.742</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>18.126</td><td>3.678</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.906</td><td>0.551</td></tr><tr><td>NS_T1</td><td>−0.262**</td><td>0.526**</td><td><bold>0.714</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>40.455</td><td>6.195</td><td>0.826</td><td>0.862</td><td>0.51</td></tr><tr><td>IG_T1</td><td>−0.193**</td><td>0.575**</td><td>0.532**</td><td><bold>0.717</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>10.276</td><td>2.179</td><td>0.746</td><td>0.759</td><td>0.514</td></tr><tr><td>IS_T1</td><td>−0.153**</td><td>0.308**</td><td>0.201**</td><td>0.301**</td><td><bold>0.77</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>6.85</td><td>1.545</td><td>0.741</td><td>0.743</td><td>0.592</td></tr><tr><td>CA_T2</td><td>0.368**</td><td>−0.216**</td><td>−0.176**</td><td>−0.219**</td><td>−0.047</td><td><bold>0.717</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>25.595</td><td>5.457</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.895</td><td>0.515</td></tr><tr><td>CSE_T2</td><td>−0.287**</td><td>0.632**</td><td>0.437**</td><td>0.415**</td><td>0.204**</td><td>−0.286**</td><td><bold>0.759</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td>18.279</td><td>4.188</td><td>0.913</td><td>0.915</td><td>0.576</td></tr><tr><td>NS_T2</td><td>−0.287**</td><td>0.458**</td><td>0.546**</td><td>0.435**</td><td>0.139*</td><td>−0.309**</td><td>0.506**</td><td><bold>0.799</bold></td><td /><td /><td>38.482</td><td>6.078</td><td>0.842</td><td>0.913</td><td>0.638</td></tr><tr><td>IG_T2</td><td>−0.132*</td><td>0.497**</td><td>0.456**</td><td>0.447**</td><td>0.157**</td><td>−0.232**</td><td>0.506**</td><td>0.562**</td><td><bold>0.843</bold></td><td /><td>9.133</td><td>2.307</td><td>0.872</td><td>0.879</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td>IS_T2</td><td>−0.182**</td><td>0.357**</td><td>0.280**</td><td>0.306**</td><td>0.313**</td><td>−0.157**</td><td>0.417**</td><td>0.353**</td><td>0.550**</td><td><bold>0.827</bold></td><td>6.183</td><td>1.678</td><td>0.798</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.684</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph><bold>Notes.</bold></emph> T2 = Time2.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-11">Creativity anxiety scale</hd> <p>A Chinese translation version of the CAS developed by Daker, Cortes, Lyons, and Green ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref84">18</reflink>]) was used for measuring creativity-specific anxiety to make the scale applicable to Chinese subjects. The following other scales are similar. This scale contains two subscales: creativity anxiety (CA; e.g., having to figure out an original method of solving something) and non-creativity anxiety control (NAC; e.g., having to conform to a well-established approach accurately). The former measures anxiety in situations that require creativity, and the latter measures anxiety toward similar situations but typically contains items that must be creatively eliminated. Each subscale contains eight items. Participants were instructed to select the answer that best depicts how anxious they would be in the given situation on a 5-point scale (0 = not a bit, 4 = very much).</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-12">Short scale of creative self</hd> <p>The SSCS was translated into Chinese to measure creative self-efficacy (Karwowski, Lebuda, Wisniewska, & Gralewski, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref85">40</reflink>]). The six items of this scale assess creative self-efficacy (e.g., I have confidence I can solve troubles needing creativity). Individuals evaluated items on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = undoubtedly yes).</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-13">Novelty seeking scale</hd> <p>A Chinese translation of the Novelty Seeking Scale (NSS) developed by Gocłowska, Ritter, Elliot, and Baas ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref86">26</reflink>]) was used to measure novelty seeking. The scale measures participants' levels of agreement about novelty seeking item lists (e.g., I enjoy finding new ways of doing things). A five-point scale scored items (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree).</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-14">Generation and selection questionnaire</hd> <p>A Chinese translation version of the Generation and Selection Questionnaire (GSQ) developed by Fürst ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref87">22</reflink>]) was used to measure the tendency to engage in idea generation and selection. The former subscale (e.g., I seek to make original idea associations) and the latter subscale (e.g., I seek ameliorations to my projects) were contained in this questionnaire. All items were scored positively. Participants were required to rate how frequently the situation presented in the items applied to themselves on a 5-point scale (1 = "rarely," 5 = "very often"). Higher scores represent more significant tendencies to engage in idea generation or selection in day-to-day life.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-15">Data analysis plan</hd> <p>The cross-sectional data (591 participants at Time1) and the longitudinal data (301 participants matching at Time1&2) were analyzed, respectively. Firstly, descriptive statistics and bivariate relations were analyzed. Then, for the cross-sectional model, the SPSS macro PROCESS was employed to examine the mediating hypothesis (Hayes & Preacher, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref88">32</reflink>]; Preacher & Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref89">51</reflink>]). The chain mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking were examined by Hayes's Model 6 (Hayes & Preacher, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref90">32</reflink>]). For the cross-lagged model, we employed <emph>Mplus</emph> version 8.0 and maximum likelihood estimation (MLR). The cross-lagged model was administered to examine longitudinal multiple mediating roles for semi-longitudinal data. Specifically, we examined if the independent (creativity anxiety) at T1 would be a prediction for the mediating variables (creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking) at T2. In contrast, the mediating variables at T1 predict the variation of the dependent (idea generation or idea selection) at T2. In the cross-lagged effects analysis, the T1 level of the T2 variable is controlled. Five indices were used to assess the fit of cross-lagged models: χ<sups>2</sups>/<emph>df</emph> < 5, RMSEA < 0.8, CFI > 0.9, TLI > 0.9, and SRMR < 0.8. We estimated whether the mediating roles were significant using 95% confidence intervals, which were resampled 5000 times (Hayes & Preacher, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref91">32</reflink>]). In addition, statistical analysis indicated that individual differences in gender and only-child status were significantly different in some main variables (<emph>ps</emph> < 0.05). The chain mediating examination was conducted with those two demographics as covariates to rule out possible promiscuous roles of gender and only-child status.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-16">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182340429-17">Cross-sectional model</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182340429-18">Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses</hd> <p>Pearson correlation analysis was conducted among the variables of 591 participants at T1. Table 1 showed that creativity anxiety at T1 was negatively correlated with creative self-efficacy at T1, novelty seeking at Time 1, idea generation at T1, and idea generation at T1 (<emph>r</emph> = −0.300, −0.232, −0.183, and −0.155, respectively, <emph>ps</emph> < 0.01). Creative self-efficacy at T1 positively correlated with novelty seeking at Time 1, idea generation at T1, and idea generation at T1 (<emph>r</emph> = 0.458, 0.551, and 0.297, respectively, <emph>ps</emph> < 0.01). Novelty seeking at T1 significantly correlated with idea generation at T1 and idea generation at T1 (<emph>r</emph> = 0.493, and 0.199, respectively, <emph>ps</emph> < 0.01). Finally, there was a positive correlation between idea generation at T1 and idea generation at T1 (<emph>r</emph> = 0.356, <emph>p</emph> <.01). Furthermore, all variables had acceptable discriminant validity at T1, as the square root of variables' AVE (diagonal of Table 1) was higher than correlation coefficients with other variables (Ab Hamid, Sami, & Sidek, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>]; Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref93">30</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-19">Chain mediating effects analyses</hd> <p>On the relationship between creativity anxiety at T1 and idea generation at T1, we assumed that creative self-efficacy at T1 and novelty seeking at T1 would play multiple mediating roles. Four equations (E1 to E4) were used to test this hypothesis after the effect of gender and only-child status were considered (see the left side of Table 2). Table 2 showed that creativity anxiety at T1 negatively predicted the idea generation at T1 (<emph>β</emph> = −0.178, <emph>p</emph> <.001) in E1. Furthermore, creativity anxiety at T1 negatively predicted creative self-efficacy at T1 (<emph>β</emph> = −0.292, <emph>p</emph> <.001) in E2 and novelty seeking at T1 (<emph>β</emph> = −0.105, <emph>p</emph> <.01) in E3. Creative self-efficacy at T1 positively predicted novelty seeking at T1 (<emph>β</emph> = 0.417, <emph>p</emph> <.001) in E3 and idea generation at T1 (<emph>β</emph> = 0.422, <emph>p</emph> <.001) in E4. In addition, novelty seeking at T1 positively predicted IG_T1 (<emph>β</emph> = 0.304, <emph>p</emph> <.001) in E4. However, creativity anxiety at T1 did not significantly predict idea generation at T1 (<emph>p</emph> >.05) in E4 when creativity anxiety at T1, creative self-efficacy at T1, and novelty seeking at T1 predicted idea generation at T1 concurrently.</p> <p>On the association between creativity anxiety at T1 and idea selection at T1, we expected that only creative self-efficacy at T1 would be a mediator and that novelty seeking at T1 would not play a mediating role. Another four equations were used to test this hypothesis (see the right side of Table 2). The predicted roles in E2 for creative self-efficacy at T1 and E3 for novelty seeking at T1 were consistent with idea generation at T1. Similar to idea generation at T1, Table 2 also showed that creativity anxiety at T1 (<emph>β</emph> = −0.152, <emph>p</emph> <.001) negatively predicted idea selection at T1 in E1. But when two mediating variables are controlled, the direct effect did not reach significance (<emph>p</emph> >.05) in E4. Creative self-efficacy at T1 positively predicted idea selection at T1 (<emph>β</emph> = 0.256, <emph>p</emph> <.001) in E4. Further, novelty seeking at T1 did not significantly predict idea selection (<emph>p</emph> >.05) in E4.</p> <p>Table 3 and Figure 3 showed serial mediating effects of creative self-efficacy at T1 and novelty seeking at T1. For idea generation at T1, the total indirect effect (−0.192) made up 108.164% of the total effect (−0.178) of the relation between creativity anxiety at T1 and idea generation at T1. To be specific, creativity anxiety at T1 affected idea generation at T1 partly through three diverse mediating paths (i.e., creative self-efficacy at T1, novelty seeking at T1, and the serial mediating roles of both creative self-efficacy at T1 and novelty seeking at T1; see Table 3). Besides, three indirect mediating effects made up 69.369%, 17.962%, and 20.833% of the total effect separately, and all indirect paths were significant. Thus, creative self-efficacy at T1 and novelty seeking at T1 played full-chain mediating roles in the relation between creativity anxiety at T1 and idea generation at T1.</p> <p>However, for idea selection at T1, the total indirect effect (−0.090) of the relation between creativity anxiety at T1 and idea selection at T1 also was significant, which was explained by 59.591% of the total effect (−0.152). However, the only significant indirect effect was the mediating role of creative self-efficacy at T1. The indirect effect of creative self-efficacy at T1 accounted for 52.469% of the total effect. Thus, creative self-efficacy at T1 completely mediated the relation between creativity anxiety at T1 and idea selection at T1.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-20">Cross-lagged model</hd> <p>The chain mediating effect of the cross-lagged model was analyzed with participants who offered T2 data. And participants with only cross-sectional T1 data were dropped. The final sample contains 301 participants match at T1 and T2 for the cross-lagged model.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-21">Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis</hd> <p>Table 4 indicated that creativity anxiety at T1 was positively correlated with creativity anxiety at T2 (<emph>r</emph> = 0.368, <emph>p</emph> <.01). Creativity anxiety was negatively associated with creative self-efficacy, novelty seeking, idea generation, and idea selection across T1 and T2 (<emph>ps</emph> < 0.05), except for the relationship between creativity anxiety at T2 and idea selection at T1. In addition, creative self-efficacy, novelty seeking, idea generation, and idea selection were positively correlated with each other at T1–T2 (<emph>ps</emph> < 0.05).</p> <p>To exclude the bias caused by data loss, five independent-sample <emph>t</emph>-tests were administered to contrast creativity anxiety at T1, creative self-efficacy at T1, novelty seeking at T1, idea generation at T1, and idea selection at T1 between participants with T2 data (<emph>n</emph> = 301) and participants without T2 data (<emph>n</emph> = 290). Results did not show statistical differences in those variables (<emph>ps</emph> > 0.05). See supplementary materials, Section 1, for details.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-22">Semi-longitudinal chain mediating effects analyses</hd> <p>The cross-lagged model was employed to examine semi-longitudinal chain mediating roles with T1 and T2 data (Figure 4; for a review and an empirical instance, respectively, see Kline, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref94">44</reflink>]; Satici & Satici, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref95">57</reflink>]). According to the method proposed by Preacher ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref96">50</reflink>]), the "<emph>a1</emph>" path was examined by regressing creative self-efficacy at T2 on creativity anxiety at T1, controlling for creative self-efficacy at T1. The "<emph>a2</emph>" path was examined through regressing novelty seeking at T2 on creativity anxiety at T1, controlling for novelty seeking at T1. The "<emph>d</emph>" path was examined through regressing novelty seeking at T2 on creative self-efficacy at T1, controlling for novelty seeking at T1. The "<emph>b1</emph>" path was examined through regressing idea generation at T2/idea selection at T2 on creative self-efficacy at T1, controlling for idea generation at T1/idea selection at T1. The "<emph>b2</emph>" path was examined through regressing idea generation at T2/idea selection at T2 on novelty seeking at T1, controlling for idea generation at T1/idea selection at T1. Then, similar to mediating effects for cross-sectional data, the longitudinal mediating effect of creative self-efficacy was examined by path <emph>a1</emph>*path <emph>b1</emph>, novelty seeking by path <emph>a2</emph>*path <emph>b2</emph>, and chain mediating effect by path <emph>a1</emph>* path <emph>d</emph>*path <emph>b2</emph>.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. The cross-lagged model for a semi-longitudinal design for testing the effect of creativity anxiety on idea generation (A) or idea selection (B) via chain mediating effect of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking.</p> <p>Results from the semi-longitudinal chain mediating model showed acceptable fit (idea generation model: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>/<emph>df</emph> = 1.788; CFI = 0.984; TLI = 0.962; RMSEA = 0.051; SRMR = 0.049; idea selection model: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>/<emph>df</emph> = 1.588; CFI = 0.982; TLI = 0.961; RMSEA = 0.044; SRMR = 0.043). For the idea generation, consistent with our hypotheses, Figure 4 showed that all direct paths (<emph>a1</emph>, <emph>a2</emph>, <emph>d</emph>, <emph>b1</emph>, <emph>b2</emph>) of the idea generation model are significant. Results of the bootstrap revealed that three indirect paths were significant: creative self-efficacy (<emph>a1</emph>*<emph>b1</emph>: <emph>β</emph> = −0.045, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.018, bootstrap 95%CI = −0.089~-0.015); novelty seeking (<emph>a2</emph>*<emph>b2</emph>: <emph>β</emph> = −0.028, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.013, bootstrap 95%CI = −0.060~-0.007); creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking (<emph>a1</emph>*<emph>d</emph>*<emph>b2</emph>: <emph>β</emph> = −0.006, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.003, bootstrap 95%CI = −0.015~-0.002). While for the idea selection, the direct path of the <emph>b2</emph> of the idea selection model was not significant. And there was only one indirect path that was significant: creative self-efficacy (<emph>a1</emph>*<emph>b1</emph>: <emph>β</emph> = −0.027, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.014, bootstrap 95%CI = −0.064~-0.005). Thus, consistent with the cross-sectional model, the cross-lagged model also proved that there is a negative correlation in the relationship between creativity anxiety and idea generation indirectly through creative self-efficacy and then novelty seeking. In contrast, creativity anxiety was negatively correlated with idea selection only through creative self-efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-23">Discussion</hd> <p>The potentially negative effect of creativity anxiety on two creative cognitive styles (i.e., idea generation; idea selection) was first investigated and then examined the possible mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking by a cross-sectional model and a cross-lagged model. Concerning the association between creativity anxiety and two creative cognitive styles, not only was creativity anxiety negatively related to both idea generation and idea selection in the cross-sectional model, but also creativity anxiety undermined individuals' idea generation and idea selection one year later. Concerning the chain mediating effects for idea generation, both the cross-sectional model and the cross-lagged model proved that creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea generation via three mediating pathways: creative self-efficacy, novelty seeking, and the chain mediating effects of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking. For idea selection, creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea selection via only one indirect pathway: creative self-efficacy. This manifests that novelty seeking selectively mediates the effect of creativity anxiety on two creative cognitive styles, which contributes to a further comprehension of the mechanisms by which creativity anxiety influences these two creative cognitive styles.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-24">Effects of creativity anxiety on creative cognitive styles</hd> <p>This study has shown that creativity anxiety negatively predicted both idea generation and idea selection. Individuals with high creativity anxiety might be worried about the risk of creative failure, and this might be a barrier to creative thinking when individuals would venture out of entrenched routines. Creativity-anxious individuals may avoid creative cognitive paths (Bilton & Leary, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref97">8</reflink>]; De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref98">20</reflink>]). If individuals avoid thinking in a generative or selective way, their ability to engage in these important forms of creative cognition may not improve over time. Additionally, the negative effect of creativity anxiety on two creative cognitive styles might be partly explained by the different brain and physiological mechanisms for them. Previous studies have shown that brain networks associated with creativity anxiety identified by connectome-based predictive modeling (CPM; Ren et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>]) were broadly different from creative thinking (Beaty et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref100">6</reflink>]). Similarly, the neural basis of idea generation and idea selection might be different from creativity anxiety. In addition, several neurotransmitter studies also have shed light on this finding. Previous studies have shown that overproduction of norepinephrine (NE) and decreased levels of dopamine (DA) and serotonin (5-HT) were not only associated with anxiety (Charney, Woods, Goodman, & Heninger, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref101">13</reflink>]; Goddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref102">27</reflink>]; Tong et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref103">63</reflink>]) and but also closely related to reduced divergent thinking/creativity (Chermahini & Hommel, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref104">15</reflink>]; Heilman, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref105">33</reflink>]; Volf, Kulikov, Bortsov, & Popova, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref106">64</reflink>]). Therefore, neurotransmitter disorders may play physiological roles in the effect of anxiety on creative cognitive styles.</p> <p>In addition, in past work, specific anxiety of other cognitive domains (e.g., math anxiety) is connected with falling performance and avoiding specific activities (e.g., studying math or engaging in a career related to math; Dowker, Sarkar, & Looi, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref107">21</reflink>]; Hembree, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref108">34</reflink>]). Similarly, if creativity anxiety is accompanied by avoiding engagement with creative thinking, as we demonstrate here, it demonstrates that creativity-anxious individuals are inclined to get less practice thinking creatively over time and, therefore, less likely to improve personal creativity. Our results suggest that it is essential to examine if creativity anxiety is associated with worse creativity via the falling performance of idea generation or selection.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-25">Mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking respectively</hd> <p>Findings revealed that creative self-efficacy mediated the negative effect of creativity anxiety on idea generation or idea selection. Consistent with the SET and some empirical findings, the improvement of creative self-efficacy often requires a relaxed and secure environment (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref109">5</reflink>]; Karwowski & Lebuda, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref110">39</reflink>]; Karwowski, Gralewski, & Szumski, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref111">38</reflink>]). Just like other negative emotions, creativity anxiety might symbolize unsafe information or a sense of lack-of-control over creative thinking, as creative cognitive paths and unconventional routines might signify failure (Baas, Roskes, Sligte, Nijstad, & De Dreu, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref112">4</reflink>]; De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref113">20</reflink>]). Thus, creativity anxiety negatively predicts creative self-efficacy. Creative self-efficacy is an essential intrinsic motivational predictor of a variety of creative aspects (Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref114">36</reflink>]; Tierney & Farmer, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref115">62</reflink>]). Similarly, if individuals are afraid of creating, they will not engage in creative cognitive styles (i.e., idea generation; idea selection) over time. Therefore, individuals who scored higher in creativity anxiety were not prone to engage in creative cognitive styles by the mediating effect of creative self-efficacy. Besides, this indirect role is in keeping with recently reported findings that creative self-efficacy mediated the effect of other factors (e.g., critical thinking disposition, trait curiosity, creative mind-sets) on creativity (Qiang, Han, Guo, Bai, & Karwowski, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref116">52</reflink>]; Royston & Reiter‐Palmon, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref117">54</reflink>]). This suggests that creative self-efficacy might be a necessary motivational component of broadly creative aspects, including creative cognitive styles.</p> <p>However, as for novelty seeking, this study merely provided evidence that novelty seeking mediated the creativity anxiety – idea generation relationship. This mediating role was not found in the creativity anxiety-idea selection relationship. This finding might be due to the different cognitive mechanisms required by the two creative cognitive styles (Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref118">43</reflink>]; Runco & Jaeger, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref119">55</reflink>]). The cognitive style of idea generation generally emphasizes bottom-up, extended and remote cognitive processes to get more information and ideas (Fürst & Grin, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref120">24</reflink>]; Fürst, Ghisletta, & Lubart, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref121">23</reflink>]; Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref122">43</reflink>]; Weinberger, Green, & Chrysikou, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref123">65</reflink>]). This cognitive style coincides with the essence of novelty seeking, namely the tendency to pursue various and remote associations (Gocłowska, Ritter, Elliot, & Baas, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref124">26</reflink>]; Gvirts et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref125">29</reflink>]). Novelty seeking and idea generation both need a reduced control state. In contrast, the cognitive style of idea selection tends to adopt goal-directed executive control processes, such as elaborating, structuring, or crafting ideas (Fürst, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref126">22</reflink>]; Fürst, Ghisletta, & Lubart, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref127">23</reflink>]; Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref128">43</reflink>]). Idea generation might heavily rely on novelty seeking compared with idea selection. Although creativity anxiety is negatively linked with novelty seeking, idea selection is independent of this association. Thus, the mediating role of novelty seeking is merely reflected in the relation between creativity anxiety and idea generation. Additionally, the mediating effect on the creativity anxiety-idea generation relationship is consistent with the DPCM (Baas, Roskes, Sligte, Nijstad, & De Dreu, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref129">4</reflink>]; De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref130">20</reflink>]). The DPCM emphasizes that flexibility and persistence are two paths to creativity (Baas, Roskes, Sligte, Nijstad, & De Dreu, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref131">4</reflink>]). Creativity anxiety might be associated with narrowed attentional span and consuming more cognitive resources needed for idea generation and prompt individuals to tend to rely on cognitive persistence rather than cognitive flexibility. Therefore, creativity anxiety is negatively associated with idea generation via the indirect effect of novelty seeking, as less novelty seeking for remote associations means more engagement with usual cognitive activities.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-26">Multiple mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking</hd> <p>This study found a chain mediating path of creativity anxiety→ creative self-efficacy → novelty seeking → idea generation. In line with numerous studies revealing that anxiety is accompanied by less self-efficacy (Cooper & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref132">16</reflink>]; Mills, Pajares, & Herron, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref133">48</reflink>]), creativity anxiety, specific anxiety of creative thinking, reduces creative self-efficacy. And the lack of creative self-efficacy would reflect insecurity and uncertainty about a creative environment which would lead a lower level of novelty seeking, as creative self-efficacy provides confidence for novelty seeking (Schweizer, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref134">59</reflink>]; Tierney & Farmer, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref135">62</reflink>]). Then, consistent with the previous work examining the relation between novelty seeking and divergent thinking (Gocłowska, Ritter, Elliot, & Baas, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref136">26</reflink>]; Gordon & Luo, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref137">28</reflink>]), creativity anxiety negatively influence the idea generation performance through chain roles of creative self-efficacy, and novelty seeking in this study. The multiple mediating effects suggest that individuals with high creativity anxiety would experience less creative self-efficacy, and this is not conducive to novelty seeking and ultimately undermine idea generation.</p> <p>In contrast, creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking did not play chain mediating roles between creativity anxiety and idea selection. The essence of novelty seeking is an inclination to seek novel or creative things (Costa, Tran, Turchi, & Averbeck, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref138">17</reflink>]). Just as reviewed above, different cognitive demands of idea generation and idea selection may lead to different needs for novelty seeking. This explanation fits well with previous studies of Kirton ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref139">42</reflink>]) and Brophy and Dennis ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref140">9</reflink>]), who divide cognitive styles into innovative and adaptor styles (Kirton, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref141">42</reflink>]) or divergent and convergent styles (Brophy & Dennis, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref142">9</reflink>]). Generative style, similar to innovative or divergent styles, needs novelty seeking to produce remote and various associations, and therefore chain roles of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking would be linked with idea generation (Fürst, Ghisletta, & Lubart, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref143">23</reflink>]; Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref144">43</reflink>]). In contrast, selective style, similar to adaptive or convergent styles, make use of executive functions rather than novelty seeking (Fürst, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref145">22</reflink>]; Fürst & Grin, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref146">24</reflink>]; Weinberger, Green, & Chrysikou, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref147">65</reflink>]). Therefore, the chain model of idea selection did not reach a significant level.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-27">Implications and limitations</hd> <p>Although some cross-sectional research examined associations between creativity anxiety and creative performance, essential longitudinal studies are scarce. By combining a cross-sectional model and a cross-lagged model, this study represents the first attempt to investigate the effect of creativity anxiety on creative cognitive styles and potentially mediating effects of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking on this impact. The findings will give an insight into understanding the mechanisms by which creativity anxiety affects creative cognitive styles and expand the application scope of the DPCM and the SET. Besides, examining potential mechanisms of how creativity-specific anxiety influences two creative cognitive styles is necessary for better comprehending the relationship between creativity anxiety and real-life creativity. Our finding that creativity anxiety hinders tendencies to engage in creative cognition in day-to-day life suggests that as, in the case of math anxiety and math (Ashcraft, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref148">3</reflink>]), creativity anxiety increases avoidance of creative tendency. This avoidance tendency may have negative indications for the development of creative abilities over time – if highly creativity-anxious individuals avoid thinking creatively, they may get less practice doing so and, therefore, may fail to fully realize their creative potential. Further studies should explore whether individuals with high creativity anxiety develop their creative abilities less over time and, if so, whether this is related to a tendency to avoid idea generation and selection. Finally, we provide valuable educational implications for cultivating creative cognitive styles. Firstly, training in controlling creativity anxiety could act as an effective way to facilitate creative cognitive styles, including both idea generation and idea selection. The less creativity anxiety, the more daring individuals might be to engage in creative thinking. Secondly, creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking might be an essential chain path to decrease the negative effect of creativity anxiety on idea generation. Thirdly, for idea selection, enhancing creative self-efficacy would help individuals to decrease feelings of creativity anxiety and promote idea selection, while the impact of novelty seeking on idea selection needs further investigation.</p> <p>However, some limitations should be noticed, which would shed light on future studies. First, although the potential confounding effect of gender has been controlled in the present study, the sample size of females was more than that of males. Due to the majority of classes being females at the university that recruited participants, there were insufficient male participants to ensure a balanced gender distribution. Further studies should validate the present results on broader samples. Second, the development of a new version of the creativity anxiety scale applicable to clinical studies is also the content that future research should pay attention to.</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-28">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0182340429-29">Supplementary Material</hd> <p>Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2275981</p> <ref id="AN0182340429-30"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref79" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Equal Contribution.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0182340429-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Sidek, M. M. (2017, September). Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 890 (1), 012163. IOP Publishing. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref30" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile, T. A., & Khaire, M. (2008). Creativity and the role of the leader. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Business School Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 (5), 181 – 185. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref65" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Personality and creativity: The dual pathway to creativity model and a research Agenda. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7 (10), 732 – 748. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12062</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref33" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref100" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beaty, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Christensen, A. P., Rosenberg, M. D., Benedek, M., Chen, Q. ... Silvia, P. J. (2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (5), 1087 – 1092. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1713532115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref46" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected questions: Exploring the relationship between students' creative self-efficacy and teacher ratings of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5 (4), 342. doi: 10.1037/a0022834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref97" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bilton, C., & Leary, R. (2010). What can managers do for creativity? Brokering creativity in the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 8 (1), 49 – 64. doi: 10.1080/10286630290032431</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref140" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brophy, & Dennis, R. (2001). Comparing the attributes, activities, and performance of divergent, convergent, and combination thinkers. Creativity Research Journal, 13 (3–4), 439 – 455. doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrge, C., & Tang, C. (2015). Embodied creativity training: Effects on creative self-efficacy and creative production. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 51 – 61. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship of state and trait anxiety to performance on figural and verbal creative tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 (2), 269 – 283. doi: 10.1177/0146167210392788</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67 (6), 380. doi: 10.1037/h0040373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charney, D. S., Woods, S. W., Goodman, W. K., & Heninger, G. (1987). Serotonin function in anxiety. Psychopharmacology, 92 (1), 14 – 24. doi: 10.1007/BF00215473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chavez-Eakle, R. A., Lara, M. D. C., & Cruz-Fuentes, C. (2006). Personality: A possible bridge between creativity and psychopathology? Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), 27 – 38. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1801_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chermahini, S. A., & Hommel, B. (2010). The (b) link between creativity and dopamine: Spontaneous eye blink rates predict and dissociate divergent and convergent thinking. Cognition, 115 (3), 458 – 465. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, S. E., & Robinson, D. A. (1991). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy beliefs to mathematics anxiety and performance. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 24 (1), 4 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costa, V. D., Tran, V. L., Turchi, J., & Averbeck, B. B. (2014). Dopamine modulates novelty seeking behavior during decision making. Behavioral Neuroscience, 128 (5), 556. doi: 10.1037/a0037128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daker, R. J., Cortes, R. A., Lyons, I. M., & Green, A. E. (2020). Creativity anxiety: Evidence for anxiety that is specific to creative thinking, from STEM to the arts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149 (1), 42. doi: 10.1037/xge0000630</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 108 (1), 25 – 38. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (5), 739. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.739</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. Y. (2016). Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60 years? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 508. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fürst, G. (2012). Approche multivariée de la créativité: structures de personnalité et dynamiques de processus [A multivariate approach to creativity: Personality structures and process dynamics] (Doctoral dissertation). Université Genève. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:25072.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fürst, G., Ghisletta, P., & Lubart, T. (2016). Toward an integrative model of creativity and personality: Theoretical suggestions and preliminary empirical testing. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50 (2), 87 – 108. doi: 10.1002/jocb.71</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fürst, G., & Grin, F. (2018). A comprehensive method for the measurement of everyday creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28, S84 – 97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.03.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Scofield, J. E. (2020). In-class attention, spatial ability, and mathematics anxiety predict across-grade gains in adolescents' mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113 (4). doi: 10.1037/edu0000487</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gocłowska, M. A., Ritter, S. M., Elliot, A. J., & Baas, M. (2019). Novelty seeking is linked to openness and extraversion, and can lead to greater creative performance. Journal of Personality, 87 (2), 252 – 266. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12387</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goddard, A. W., Ball, S. G., Martinez, J., Robinson, M. J., Yang, C. R., Russell, J. M., & Shekhar, A. (2010). Current perspectives of the roles of the central norepinephrine system in anxiety and depression. Depression and Anxiety, 27 (4), 339 – 350. doi: 10.1002/da.20642</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gordon, C. L., & Luo, S. (2011). The personal expansion questionnaire: Measuring one's tendency to expand through novelty and augmentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 51 (2), 89 – 94. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gvirts, H. Z., Mayseless, N., Segev, A., Lewis, D. Y., Feffer, K., Barnea, Y. ... Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2017). Novelty-seeking trait predicts the effect of methylphenidate on creativity. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 31 (5), 599 – 605. doi: 10.1177/0269881116667703</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. F., Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2015.1005806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart, S. A., & Ganley, C. M. (2019). The nature of math anxiety in adults: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 5 (2), 122 – 139. doi: 10.5964/jnc.v5i2.195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation modeling to examine contingent causal processes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heilman, K. M. (2016). Possible brain mechanisms of creativity. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31 (4), 285 – 296. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acw009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21 (1), 33 – 46. doi: 10.2307/749455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, H. A., Pine, D. S., & Fox, N. A. (2015). Behavioral inhibition and developmental risk: A dual-processing perspective. Neuropsychopharmacology, 40 (1), 207 – 224. doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn't hurt to ask ... but sometimes it hurts to believe: Polish students' creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5 (2), 154. doi: 10.1037/a0021427</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between trait curiosity, creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 8 (4), 547 – 558. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v8i4.513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karwowski, M., Gralewski, J., & Szumski, G. (2015). Teachers' effect on students' creative self-beliefs is moderated by students' gender. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 1 – 8. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2013). Extending climato-economic theory: When, how, and why it explains differences in nations' creativity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36 (5), 493 – 494. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x13000150</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Big five personality traits as the predictors of creative self‐efficacy and creative personal identity: Does gender matter? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47 (3), 215 – 232. doi: 10.1002/jocb.32</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirschner, H., Hilbert, K., Hoyer, J., Lueken, U., & Beesdo-Baum, K. (2016). Psychophsyiological reactivity during uncertainty and ambiguity processing in high and low worriers. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 50, 97 – 105. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 (5), 622 – 629. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleinmintz, O. M., Ivancovsky, T., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2019). The two-fold model of creativity: The neural underpinnings of the generation and evaluation of creative ideas. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 131 – 138. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, R. B. (2015). The mediation myth. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37 (4), 202 – 213. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kluger, A., Siegfried, Z., & Ebstein, R. (2002). A meta-analysis of the association between DRD4 polymorphism and novelty seeking. Molecular Psychiatry, 7 (7), 712 – 717. doi: 10.1038/sj.mp.4001082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LeFevre, J.-A., Kulak, A. G., & Heymans, S. L. (1992). Factors influencing the selection of university majors varying in mathematical content. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 24 (3), 276. doi: 10.1037/h0078742</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathisen, G. E., & Bronnick, K. S. (2009). Creative self-efficacy: An intervention study. International Journal of Educational Research, 48 (1), 21 – 29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of the role of anxiety: Self‐efficacy, anxiety, and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 39 (2), 276 – 295. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02266.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paek, S. H., Abdulla, A. M., & Cramond, B. (2016). A meta-analysis of the relationship between three common psychopathologies—ADHD, anxiety, and depression—and indicators of little-c creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60 (2), 117 – 133. doi: 10.1177/0016986216630600</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher, K. J. (2015). Advances in mediation analysis: A survey and synthesis of new developments. Annual Review of Psychology, 66 (1), 825 – 852. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (3), 879 – 891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qiang, R., Han, Q., Guo, Y., Bai, J., & Karwowski, M. (2020). Critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity: The mediating role of creative self‐efficacy. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54 (1), 90 – 99. doi: 10.1002/jocb.347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ren, Z., Daker, R. J., Shi, L., Sun, J., Beaty, R. E., Wu, X. ... Green, A. E. (2020). Connectome-based predictive modeling of creativity anxiety. Neuroimage, 225, 117469. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117469</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Royston, R., & Reiter‐Palmon, R. (2019). Creative self‐efficacy as mediator between creative mindsets and creative problem‐solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53 (4), 472 – 481. doi: 10.1002/jocb.226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 92 – 96. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saadé, R. G., & Kira, D. (2009). Computer anxiety in e-learning: The effect of computer self-efficacy. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 8 (1), 177 – 191. doi: 10.28945/166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Satici, B., & Satici, S. A. (2022). Mindfulness and subjective happiness during the pandemic: Longitudinal mediation effect of hope. Personality and Individual Differences, 197, 111781. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111781</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarz, N. (2011). Feelings-as-information theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1, 289 – 308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schweizer, T. S. (2006). The psychology of novelty‐seeking, creativity and innovation: Neurocognitive aspects within a work‐psychological perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15 (2), 164 – 172. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00383.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suhara, T., Yasuno, F., Sudo, Y., Yamamoto, M., Inoue, M., Okubo, Y., & Suzuki, K. (2001). Dopamine D2 receptors in the insular cortex and the personality trait of novelty seeking. Neuroimage, 13 (5), 891 – 895. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0761</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Sekiguchi, A., Hashizume, H., Nouchi, R., Sassa, Y. ... Iizuka, K. (2015). Mean diffusivity of globus pallidus associated with verbal creativity measured by divergent thinking and creativity‐related temperaments in young healthy adults. Human Brain Mapping, 36 (5), 1808 – 1827. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22739</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (2), 277. doi: 10.1037/a0020952</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, Q., Cui, X., Xu, H., Zhang, X., Hu, S., Huang, F., & Xiao, L. (2022). D1 receptor-expressing neurons in ventral tegmental area alleviate mouse anxiety-like behaviors via glutamatergic projection to lateral septum. Molecular Psychiatry, 28 (2), 1 – 14. doi: 10.1038/s41380-022-01809-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volf, N. V., Kulikov, A. V., Bortsov, C. U., & Popova, N. K. (2009). Association of verbal and figural creative achievement with polymorphism in the human serotonin transporter gene. Neuroscience Letters, 463 (2), 154 – 157. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.07.070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinberger, A. B., Green, A. E., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2017). Using transcranial direct Current stimulation to enhance creative cognition: Interactions between task, polarity, and stimulation site. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 246. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, E. M. L., Chan, S. W. C., & Chair, S. (2010). Effectiveness of an educational intervention on levels of pain, anxiety and self‐efficacy for patients with musculoskeletal trauma. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66 (5), 1120 – 1131. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05273.x</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Shuoqi Xiang; Yadan Li; Richard J. Daker; Yangping Li; Xipei Guo; Weina Lei; Wenbo Deng and Weiping Hu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref139"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1458416
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Linking Creativity Anxiety to Two Creative Cognitive Styles through Creative Self-Efficacy and Novelty Seeking
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shuoqi+Xiang%22">Shuoqi Xiang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yadan+Li%22">Yadan Li</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Richard+J%2E+Daker%22">Richard J. Daker</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yangping+Li%22">Yangping Li</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xipei+Guo%22">Xipei Guo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Weina+Lei%22">Weina Lei</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wenbo+Deng%22">Wenbo Deng</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Weiping+Hu%22">Weiping Hu</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Creativity+Research+Journal%22"><i>Creativity Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 37(1):56-70.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety%22">Anxiety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Style%22">Cognitive Style</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Novelty+%28Stimulus+Dimension%29%22">Novelty (Stimulus Dimension)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Thinking%22">Creative Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Graduates%22">High School Graduates</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Innovation%22">Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+Studies%22">Longitudinal Studies</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2275981
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1040-0419<br />1532-6934
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: While creativity anxiety has been found to have negative relationships with various creative outcomes, whether creativity anxiety would also negatively influence creative cognitive styles (i.e. idea generation; idea selection) and the mechanisms underlying these impacts are still unknown. Based on the Self-Efficacy Theory (SET) and the Dual Pathway to Creativity Model (DPCM), we designed cross-sectional and cross-lagged models to examine the potential chain mediating effects of creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking in the influence of creative anxiety on creative cognitive styles. Five hundred and ninety-one participants were recruited to complete self-report measures of creativity anxiety, creative self-efficacy, novelty seeking, and creative cognitive styles at Time1, with 301 participants conducting a second wave of surveys within a year interval (Time 2). Results in both models showed that creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea generation and selection. More importantly, both mediation analyses showed that creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea generation indirectly through creative self-efficacy and then novelty seeking. However, creativity anxiety negatively predicted idea selection only through creative self-efficacy. This study provides empirical evidence for the negative effect of creativity anxiety on creative cognitive styles and illustrates that creative self-efficacy and novelty seeking could explain these impacts in different mediating patterns.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1458416
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1458416
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2275981
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 56
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Style
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Novelty (Stimulus Dimension)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creative Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Graduates
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Linking Creativity Anxiety to Two Creative Cognitive Styles through Creative Self-Efficacy and Novelty Seeking
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shuoqi Xiang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yadan Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Richard J. Daker
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yangping Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xipei Guo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Weina Lei
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wenbo Deng
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Weiping Hu
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1040-0419
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1532-6934
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Creativity Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1